Two Questions for Atheists

[K9Buck]

You cannot "prove" it does or does not exist, hence the category "agnostic" being the last bastion of intellectual honesty.

I disagree with your implication that it is "dishonest" for one to believe in the likelihood of a creator.

 

[Boss]

I explained hope to you

No, you explained one context of the word. Did you know the Oxford dictionary lists 157 definitions for the word "set?" You see... many of our English words have numerous meanings and those meanings rely on this thing we call "CONTEXT!" Apparently, you must've ingested lead paint chips as a child and as a result, are unable to fathom context. It leads to you constantly misunderstanding things and failing to communicate with others. This makes you appear mildly retarded sometimes.

So touchy..

It is your thread. You asked the questions and now get all defensive when you don't like the answers you received

I'm having trouble getting honest and candid answers. I'm getting a lot of obfuscation and dodges... a lot of smart-mouthed Atheists who suddenly proclaim Agnosticism.... but I think I count 2 honest answers to both of my questions so far.

 

[G.T.]

If you define it as posessing knowledge that a god doesnt or couldnt exist, Id call it lying. Same as I call theists.

I personally knew a woman who claimed to have had an NDE as a child and had met Jesus. Would you say she is also lying?

Thats a good question,


if she is old enough now to know that these are common instances of hallucination..

yet dismisses the possibility....then shes a liar.



If she doesnt know about hallucinations as a concept and common occurance involving NDEs, then shes not a liar but just ignorant on the subject.




Proving something means establishing the impossibility of the contrary.


NDEs dont even do that for oneself, because of hallucinations.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it possible that it's not so much that God "kills" children, but rather, permits the law of nature to run its course, which sometimes entails that children die?

Proof that Christians never believed the bible in the first place and only profess a belief in God for political purposes.

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

Cruel

No other way to describe it

 

[G.T.]

You cannot "prove" it does or does not exist, hence the category "agnostic" being the last bastion of intellectual honesty.

I disagree with your implication that it is "dishonest" for one to believe in the likelihood of a creator.

Id reparse that.

Belief, and pretending to know for certain being different and all.

Id rephrase that, for sure.


Its dishonest to pretend to know for certain.

Belief isnt necessarily dishonest. Good catch, I need to watch my phraseology.

 

[K9Buck]

In a mother’s womb, two twins were chatting.

“Do you believe in life after delivery?”

“Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense. There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

“I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”

“That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”

“Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”

“Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know, but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”

“Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”

“She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”

“Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”

“Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

 

[G.T.]

I explained hope to you

No, you explained one context of the word. Did you know the Oxford dictionary lists 157 definitions for the word "set?" You see... many of our English words have numerous meanings and those meanings rely on this thing we call "CONTEXT!" Apparently, you must've ingested lead paint chips as a child and as a result, are unable to fathom context. It leads to you constantly misunderstanding things and failing to communicate with others. This makes you appear mildly retarded sometimes.

So touchy..

It is your thread. You asked the questions and now get all defensive when you don't like the answers you received

I'm having trouble getting honest and candid answers. I'm getting a lot of obfuscation and dodges... a lot of smart-mouthed Atheists who suddenly proclaim Agnosticism.... but I think I count 2 honest answers to both of my questions so far.

There ya go again. Thats why nobody likes talkng to you.

 

[rightwinger]

I explained hope to you

No, you explained one context of the word. Did you know the Oxford dictionary lists 157 definitions for the word "set?" You see... many of our English words have numerous meanings and those meanings rely on this thing we call "CONTEXT!" Apparently, you must've ingested lead paint chips as a child and as a result, are unable to fathom context. It leads to you constantly misunderstanding things and failing to communicate with others. This makes you appear mildly retarded sometimes.

So touchy..

It is your thread. You asked the questions and now get all defensive when you don't like the answers you received

I'm having trouble getting honest and candid answers. I'm getting a lot of obfuscation and dodges... a lot of smart-mouthed Atheists who suddenly proclaim Agnosticism.... but I think I count 2 honest answers to both of my questions so far.

You coyly asked two questions that you thought were "gotcha" questions

When it turned out that atheists were able to answer them easily you now claim you do not like the answers

 

[K9Buck]

I find it fascinating that so many will mock and denounce Christian religion but shy away from having conviction when it comes to their Atheist viewpoint. Rather than be put in the awkward position of defending their Atheism, they run to the safety of the Agnostic label as a sort of incredulous intellectualism.

Correct. Many of them claim to be logical, rational, objective thinkers and then bash the belief in a creator and then run to the cover of agnosticism when presented with credible evidence of a creator. In other words, they're dishonest.

 

[rightwinger]

I find it fascinating that so many will mock and denounce Christian religion but shy away from having conviction when it comes to their Atheist viewpoint. Rather than be put in the awkward position of defending their Atheism, they run to the safety of the Agnostic label as a sort of incredulous intellectualism.

Correct. Many of them claim to be logical, rational, objective thinkers and then bash the belief in a creator and then run to the cover of agnosticism when presented with credible evidence of a creator. In other words, they're dishonest.

What evidence have you provided?

 

[G.T.]

I find it fascinating that so many will mock and denounce Christian religion but shy away from having conviction when it comes to their Atheist viewpoint. Rather than be put in the awkward position of defending their Atheism, they run to the safety of the Agnostic label as a sort of incredulous intellectualism.

Correct. Many of them claim to be logical, rational, objective thinkers and then bash the belief in a creator and then run to the cover of agnosticism when presented with credible evidence of a creator. In other words, they're dishonest.

or we dont find the evidence credible


yannow


maybe that, and then.....its completely honest.

yall have a hard time rationalizing

 

[alang1216]

Do you hope that you are wrong or do you hope that you are right?

Do you ever have doubts about your Atheism?

While it would be great to be immortal there is no doubt in my mind that there is no heaven and no hell. If I had to hope for one option or the other I'd probably hope they do not exist. Though I'm not looking forward to dying, being dead holds no terror for me. On the other hand, facing the possibility of eternal torment would be real and frightening. Since no religions agree on how to avoid hell I'd never be sure I was not headed there.

I consider myself agnostic since I don't know how the universe was created, I'm 100% sure the God of the Bible is a myth.

 

[K9Buck]

Man made religions, I find to be complete, blatant, utter bullshit. Its ok. I can, and my belief system...

Is it not arrogant for you to bash another's "man-made" belief system when, in fact, you have your own "man-made" belief system?

 

[Boss]

Then I dont know why you have such a hard time understanding the mockery while maintaining Agnosticism.

Its not that difficult to determine its internal consistency.

Well, I am not "Agnostic" but I would think Agnosticism would prevent one from judging in the vein of mockery. IF you don't know, you don't know.

 

[sealybobo]

Back a few weeks ago, I posed my first question to Atheists and I was surprised how suddenly we had so many posters proclaim themselves "Agnostic!" It was an amazing thing to see. We constantly get bombarded with the so-called "naysayers" on this forum regularly but for some odd reason, my question turned them away from Atheism to Agnosticism instantly. I don't think I ever got an honest answer to my question. So I decided it would be a good idea for a thread OP.

First Question for Atheists:

Do you hope that you are wrong or do you hope that you are right?

It's not a trick question. It's relatively easy. Just answer it honestly. If you can't answer, perhaps you need to ask yourself the question in quiet contemplation? How you answer is important and I will explain later.

The second question is:

Do you ever have doubts about your Atheism?

Again, not a trick question, relatively easy to answer.

Now, I wish that I could take credit for these profoundly brilliant questions but I can't. They are presented by Dennis Prager in an article he posted some time back. I will outline a little more about what he had to say later on. For now, I just want to get some feedback from our Atheist contingent... if we have one.

What does hope have to do with it? Do I think I'm right or do I think I'm wrong? I think I'm right.

No doubts. I am 99.999% sure there is no god. It's that .000001% that makes me agnostic.

If there is no atheists (because no one can know 100% that there is no god. You'd have to be a god yourself) then there is no theists. Do theists know 100% that there is a god? No they do not. So if there is no atheists then there is no theists.

And you are not a god in waiting Boss. Your spirit doesn't live for eternity after you die. That would make you a god. Now do I hope I'm a god in waiting? Sure. That's why humans invented god.

 

[sealybobo]

Then I dont know why you have such a hard time understanding the mockery while maintaining Agnosticism.

Its not that difficult to determine its internal consistency.

Well, I am not "Agnostic" but I would think Agnosticism would prevent one from judging in the vein of mockery. IF you don't know, you don't know.

Then why are theists such know it all assholes? They claim to know and they don't.

 

[G.T.]

Man made religions, I find to be complete, blatant, utter bullshit. Its ok. I can, and my belief system...

Is it not arrogant for you to bash another's "man-made" belief system when, in fact, you have your own "man-made" belief system?

Agnosticism is not a belief system. It means that you dont know, its intellectually honest.

And i clarified for you re: beliefs and corrected the way that I was phrasing things. Couple posts ago.

 

[G.T.]

Then I dont know why you have such a hard time understanding the mockery while maintaining Agnosticism.

Its not that difficult to determine its internal consistency.

Well, I am not "Agnostic" but I would think Agnosticism would prevent one from judging in the vein of mockery. IF you don't know, you don't know.

So you cant seperate the concepts.

Thats fine, I know its super hard work.

 

[K9Buck]

Looking at Christian behavior as exemplified by DoTard Trump, they obviously don't.

Like atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc., Christians are sinners and Jesus came to salvage sinners.

 

[K9Buck]

Why do you not answer my question directly? Why do you have to parse it and obfuscate?

My friend, there comes a time to stop casting your pearls to the swine and to cast them to another who might appreciate your knowledge and wisdom. Jesus said so himself. He also said to "let the dead bury their dead". Jesus knew many would reject him and so he advised his apostles to move on to greener pastures, so to speak.